The South Caucasus: a time to gather stones

By Vestnik Kavkaza

Ismail Agakishiyev: In our last conversation we touched on the question of the prospects of Russian- Azerbaijani dialogue after the meeting between Putin and Aliyev. I must say that some of the predictions have already come true. At the very least, there are fewer and fewer people willing to speculate on the subject of "Russian influence" during the presidential campaign in Azerbaijan.

However, the overall assessment of the regional situation still causes a little optimism, especially in view of the Syrian problem, which inevitably will affect the U.S. relations with Iran, and therefore the geostrategic region – the Caspian region plus the South Caucasus . It seems to me that the reaction of the Western allies of Obama clearly shows the unwillingness of Europe to implement military operations in the region, but at the same time it seems to me that Washington seeks to bring to completion a pre-compiled script and cannot get away from that path. By the way, the American publications against Azerbaijan create the impression of planned action. Or is it a conspiracy theory, a product of the imagination of our experts?

Alexey Vlasov: General information activity of the United States for the South Caucasus has increased markedly. Remarkably, the central argument is not associated with Iran or Syria. There are a lot of publications, for example, on Russian –Armenian relations. They say that the Kremlin is ready to "punish" Yerevan, and the world should expect a sharp escalation of the Karabakh conflict - in such bond far from being obvious, based on the interests of Russia in the region, more precisely, on the way they are interpreted by the authors of these articles.

And such things are sounded not by "hawks" but by quite respectable western authors that have not previously been seen in the artificial injection of concern . That is, obviously there is some new position of the State Department which is actively translated in the information field by controlled media. In both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and especially in Georgia there is a pool of media that accompanies clearly "propaganda materials" from Washington - everything becomes clear after meeting with their editorial content: this is an order.

Ismail Agakishiyev: I agree that there are a lot of custom-made materials which distract public opinion from controversial decisions on Syria, but at the same time, there is another problem - the crisis of confidence in the regional policy only deepens, both between countries of the region and among external players on the South Caucasus area.

Russian- Georgian relations, despite the overall change in rhetoric, have not yet received the new real content. I consider the situation to be ambiguous relating Abkhazia and South Ossetia; a complex information background is also formed around it. Perhaps, in this situation, the policy of Russia should be more clearly defined and specific . Relatively speaking, our view of the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict at the moment is such and such. We must avoid some arbitrary interpretation of the intentions of the Kremlin.

This is the line that causes mistrust towards the EU and Washington - double standards and the absolute insincerity of Brussels repel from it. I believe that the Russian view of the region must get rid of this duality, though I understand that this cannot happen immediately.

Alexey Vlasov: I think that it is time to gather stones scattered by Yeltsin in the 1990s. And you're right - we need a well-defined sounded doctrine for the South Caucasus, like the Eurasian project for Central Asia. Situational reflection will allow some time to balance between the interests of local elites, but in this balancing it is easy to lose the essence and meaning of what we actually want to achieve in regional politics.

To be continued